Suchergebnisse

Objective: Conduct secondary data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of Massachusetts' Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive Foster Care (Outreach) for increasing social support (SS) among enrolled youth. Participants: 194 youth in intensive foster care under the guardianship of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families with a goal of independent living (IL) or long-term substitute care, and born between August 1985 and December 1990 (67% female, 66% White, 27% Hispanic) participated in the study between September 2004 and March 2009. Method: We hypothesized that Outreach compared to services as usual (SAU; control group) would increase participants' SS and that there would be racial/ethnic disparities in SS as a function of the Outreach. Treatment effects were tested using mixed-effect models. Results: Outreach did not increase foster youth's SS, compared to SAU. No racial/ethnic disparities in program effect were detected. Discussion and Applications to Social Work: Providers of IL services should reconsider how best to build and strengthen SS among the foster youth they serve.

Barth et al. (2021) published an article in this journal identifying ten topics in the field of child welfare that are frequently discussed among professionals, advocates, and researchers in an effort to shape discussions of practice and policy reform. Concerned that these discussions are often poorly informed by the research evidence, Barth et al. intended to offer a corrective to these common, erroneous narratives. The Editor-in-Chief, Bruce Thyer, asked for suggestions for commentators and then invited some number of respondents to offer their perspectives on the original article. Here, we respond to each of the submitted papers, highlighting areas of agreement, and addressing other topics where we—sometimes sharply—disagree. We welcome an ongoing, fact-based, respectful dialogue to help shape child welfare reform. Efforts to improve the child welfare system are urgently needed; we stand by our view that large-scale practice and policy reform, in particular, must be guided by the best available research evidence.

An intense appetite for reforming and transforming child welfare services in the United States is yielding many new initiatives. Vulnerable children and families who become involved with child welfare clearly deserve higher quality and more effective services. New policies, programs, and practices should be built on sound evidence. Reforms based on misunderstandings about what the current data show may ultimately harm families. This review highlights 10 commonly held misconceptions which we assert are inconsistent with the best available contemporary evidence. Implications for better alignment of evidence and reform are discussed.

Objectives: This article describes the Standard Interview for Evidence Use (SIEU), a measure to assess the level of engagement in acquiring, evaluating, and applying research evidence in health and social service settings. Method: Three scales measuring input, process, and output of research evidence and eight subscales were identified using principal axis factor analysis and parallel analysis of data collected from 202 state and county child welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice systems leaders. Results: The SIEU scales and subscales demonstrate strong internal consistency as well as convergent and discriminant validity. Conclusions: The SIEU is easy to use and can be administered as a complete scale or as three smaller scales to separately examine evidence in acquisition, evaluation, or application. The measure demonstrates potential in understanding the role of research evidence in service settings and in monitoring the process of evidence-based practice and application of scientific principles in social work practice.

AbstractScholars and advocates are at odds about how to achieve higher levels of child safety and permanency. Calls for change include the recent upEND focus on eradication of child welfare services to a radical refocusing of the present system towards prevention/early intervention. To clarify the implications of reform over abolition, we seek to portray a future in which the abolition of child welfare has occurred, in juxtaposition to maintaining four core elements of established child maltreatment programmes around the world: (1) receiving and responding to community signals about the risk to children; (2) assessment of need coupled with a proportionate response; (3) rights protections to ensure fairness when placement outside the family is required; and (4) procedures for accountability and quality improvement. For each of these functions, we outline abolitionist advocates' positions and implications for children and parents. Across these elements, we delineate how assigning these responsibilities to communities, as suggested by upEND, would likely (1) exaggerate racial and economic inequities and (2) create structural barriers that would increase harm to children. We suggest several evidence‐informed enhancements to practice, research and policy that would mitigate these inequities while also increasing safety and permanency.